The Instigator
RacH3ll3
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
bored
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

zoos

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
bored
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,947 times Debate No: 8344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

RacH3ll3

Pro

hello :)

we are going to be arguing about zoos. (If they do harm on the animals, if it's a waste of money, whether or not we should have them, etc.)

-----

1. --Does it do harm to the animals?-- Animals in zoos are actually well fed and well taken care of. Zoo animals tend to live longer lives, (because there is no risk for prey), they get fed better, and they suffer from fewer parasites or disease.
http://www.goodzoos.com...

2. --It provides good entertainment for the family.--- Let's face it, when you were a young kid, you loved going to the zoo right? Well most people do like to see animals that they cannot see normally where they live. And who doesn't like to watch a monkey throw poop at another monkey? ;)

3. --It provides jobs to many people.---If zoos were to be closed, think of how many jobs would be lost.

----these are some of my arguments. Thanks you and I look forward to debating with you :)
bored

Con

Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. Also, thank you to those who read it:)

1. Harm to animals
Physically, it is not difficult to see the disadvantages to zoos. Instead of the acres of open land most of these animals are used to, they are penned up in cages or pens, which never exceed an acre--think of how uncomfortable that would be for the children! In fact, the required amount of space for a tiger's cage is 1,728 cubic feet, or a 12 foot cube.
http://www.blurtit.com...

Other than space, there is also the temperance in natural actions, such as defending one's livelihood and family. Most wild animals are very protective. By taking them into zoos and teaching them to expect regular mealtimes, play nicely, and expose themselves to humans, we are taking away their instinct and habits necessary to have these animals survive by themselves. Are we trying to breed a whole new set of species? If we breed the domesticated kind from the wild ones, slowly, the wild will begin to fade away and we shall be left with more problems than possibilities. Scientists will no longer worry about recreating the Wooly Mammoth, but more recent extinctions. We have already begun to see this happening, with examples such as the Quagga, a now extinct variety of the Plains Zebra.

Once we have an over population of these domesticated animals in zoos, what are we to do with them? Are zoos to become a more exotic version of the pound? Perhaps we could inject/operate on the animals to make them infertile, as they are doing already in some captivity centers. http://www.sandiegozoo.org...

Zoo animals do live longer than those in the wild, because of more civilized health care and fewer vicious attacks, in the western parts of the world at least. There are still many zoos around the world which mistreat animals. Since there are not many statistics on zoos in some of the third-world countries.
We consider Germany a fairly civilized country. According to nation master, Germany holds Europe's largest economy and second greatest population. It's GDP per capita (National gross domestic product divided by population~approx. value of goods produced by each person) is $35, 270.36, ranked #19 in the world in 2006. http://www.nationmaster.com...

However, that wasn't enough for some people. In 2008, the Berlin Zoo decided to take matters into its own hands, namely, selling some of the zoo's older animals to a slaughterhouse, where they could reap the rewards from the flesh and skins. http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
While I realize we cannot imbibe other countries with our morals and ideas, they set a bad precedent for future zoos, especially in such civilized and productive countries as Germany.

As well as animal abuse from the inside, what about from the outside. Are zoos protected enough? Apparently not. An England zoo experienced horrific carnage due to vandals who invaded a petting zoo. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(Warning: Graphic pictures and language)

2. This brings me to my second point. Entertainment. (this section contains some disturbing stories...sorry, just a heads up)
We are too tolerant in the face of 'entertainment' as a society. I.e. porn, vulgar TV shows, obscene music videos, language in songs that you wouldn't dare say to a teacher or your grandma, etc.
However, the majority of these, while not considered appropriate for certain age groups, rarely involve unsuspecting creatures being hurt. Porn does lead to demoralization and shorter life expectancies, mostly for young women in that business, but they are not (at least, not in America) captured against their wills and held captive. These animals have no choice. It is simply the luck of the draw, who will go first and who will stay, forever, for a year, a month, a week...

Do you consider it fair for animals to be treated in such awful ways, under the slight protection of entertainment? I don't consider things that are 'entertainment' as valuable as 'reserved'.
Personally, I remember that as a child, I most enjoyed patting the horses, and feeding the fish. I was scared of the emu and it took me a while to get over my fear of goats. My point is, children's entertainment is not so hugely invested in zoos that slowly eliminating them would be a huge loss for early childhood.

Also, under the guise of 'zoos', many animals get illegally transported into international black markets. China is the largest market as of 2008, but the United States of America is a close second, according to Newsweek. http://www.bigcatrescue.org...

Also, another example of America's not-so-great-entertainment industry: Las Vegas. Much goes on there that no one hear about, after all, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Not for Shaquille, however. Shaquille is a 150 lb black leopard, who, as part of a Las Vegas night club act, jumped through rings of fire. If he didn't perform as well as expected, his boss beat him with a baseball bat, in the face, until he was bloody.

I apologize for the graphic content of that story. It is true though, and it exemplifies the cruelty of animals provided for entertainment. While I realize that we are debating about zoos, I do not think that animal 'entertainment' is a good reason for captivity.

3. Let's move on to providing jobs. My opponent has not listed any sources, so I shall wait for those.

Thank you
and Good Night:P
Debate Round No. 1
RacH3ll3

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

"Physically, it is not difficult to see the disadvantages to zoos. Instead of the acres of open land most of these animals are used to, they are penned up in cages or pens, which never exceed an acre"

This used to be the case, but now zoos are making environments that better suit the animals. Instead of being kept in cages, many zoos have large areas where animals can move around freely.
http://www.arbeitssprache-englisch.com...

"In fact, the required amount of space for a tiger's cage is 1,728 cubic feet, or a 12 foot cube."

this is actually the minimum required amount.
---
"If we breed the domesticated kind from the wild ones, slowly, the wild will begin to fade away and we shall be left with more problems than possibilities"

Actually, breeding the animals keeps them from extinction. The animals won't have to deal with poachers, low food supply, and all the other natural disasters that cause most animals endangerment.
http://www.physorg.com...
---
"There are still many zoos around the world which mistreat animals"

This may be true, but if they are mistreating animals, they really must not care about breaking the law (since mistreating animals is against the law anyways) so if we were to close all zoos, who's to say that they wouldn't continue their "service"? These zoos will go on no matter what kind of laws we pass.
---
"We consider Germany a fairly civilized country. According to nation master, Germany holds Europe's largest economy and second greatest population. It's GDP per capita (National gross domestic product divided by population~approx. value of goods produced by each person) is $35, 270.36, ranked #19 in the world in 2006."

yes, but can you explain to me what you were meaning by this? (I am sorry, I just don't understand how this pertains to zoos. I know you have a reason, I just don't think you made it clear) ;)
---
"However, that wasn't enough for some people. In 2008, the Berlin Zoo decided to take matters into its own hands, namely, selling some of the zoo's older animals to a slaughterhouse, where they could reap the rewards from the flesh and skins"

This is sad, and not every zoo does this, but isn't this what we do with cattle? Why should exotic animals be treated any differently that cattle?
---
"As well as animal abuse from the inside, what about from the outside. Are zoos protected enough? Apparently not. An England zoo experienced horrific carnage due to vandals who invaded a petting zoo"

Yes, but this happens to pets and cattle as well, so it is not just from zoos.
---
"However, the majority of these, while not considered appropriate for certain age groups, rarely involve unsuspecting creatures being hurt. Porn does lead to demoralization and shorter life expectancies, mostly for young women in that business, but they are not (at least, not in America) captured against their wills and held captive. These animals have no choice. It is simply the luck of the draw, who will go first and who will stay, forever, for a year, a month, a week..."

when you have a pet hamster or guinea pig, are they not held against their wills and held captive? Yes, they are. Have you ever (and I know you have at least once), picked up some random animal on the side of the road, in your backyard, etc, (whether it be a turtle or a frog, etc) put it in a box or jar and kept it? This is just the same thing.
---
"it took me a while to get over my fear of goats. "

Yes I remember when I went in the cage to feed the goats one time, I was wearing a dress and one of them hopped up and untied my bow! (sorry, just a random burst of knowledge)
---
"Also, another example of America's not-so-great-entertainment industry: Las Vegas. Much goes on there that no one hear about, after all, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Not for Shaquille, however. Shaquille is a 150 lb black leopard, who, as part of a Las Vegas night club act, jumped through rings of fire. If he didn't perform as well as expected, his boss beat him with a baseball bat, in the face, until he was bloody."

Unfortunately things like these have to happen. But this is not the zoo. This is a night club act. Not saying it is okay to do, but this goes on in the home with house pets. So does this mean we should not be able to keep house pets too?
(I read those stories, and those are some very sad stories. But think, if they were kept in a zoo, this would not have happened.)
---
"Let's move on to providing jobs. My opponent has not listed any sources, so I shall wait for those."
17,780 estimated people are employed by this type of work. Alot of jobs wasted.
Sorry about that. Here are my sources:
http://www.bls.gov...
-------Arguments-------

1.---Conservation ---The procedure for getting zoo animals have changed. They no longer get them from the wild anymore, they get them from captive breeding. This does not hurt the newborn animal, because he is used to his environment in the zoo. Some breeding programs help restore endangered species, as I have mentioned before. Zoos also take animals rescued from traveling circus's.

2. --Research--Zoos also provide an opportunity for scientists to conduct research. In 2002, zoos participated in over 2200 conservation and research products in more than 80 countries.
(sources for arguments one and two)-
http://animals.howstuffworks.com...

3.-- Reproduction-- The zoo gets to control which animals reproduce, and the males will not have competition, which means they will not getting hurt competing against other males. The females will also have a safe environment to have her newborns, and will not have to worry about other animals eating her babies.
http://sd71.bc.ca...

Thank you and I look forward to the next round :)
bored

Con

Thank you:)
"this is actually the minimum required amount."
I realize that. The fact is, the minimum is what most people feel is the right amount. If you are told to write a research paper, of a minimum of seven pages, are you likely to do 17? No, it's a pain for you to write and a pain for the teacher to grade. Likewise, larger spaces and better accommodations require more money, which is a put-off for many companies, especially smaller ones.
Here are a few excerpts from the source my opponent provided:http://www.arbeitssprache-englisch.com...
"Almost every large city in the world and lots of smaller towns have zoos."
"Many large zoos are owned and operated by local governments."
Especially in this recession, how high on the list is zoo animal comfort for local governments? When governments are given a minimum, they stick to it. The point is, the current standards for zoos are too low and not challenging enough.
another source mentioned in my opponent's argument: http://www.physorg.com...
"To wit, dozens of zoos across North America participate in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' (AZA) Species Survival Plan (SSP) Program,"
Dozens of zoos? When there are hundreds in North America? http://www.stevebaginski.com...
How many animals are not on a 'Survival Plan'?
"the Department of Agriculture licenses 2,400 "animal exhibitors," of which 212 are members of the AZA, an organization that requires high standards of animal care, science, and conservation"
http://www.howstuffworks.com...

"This may be true, but if they are mistreating animals, they really must not care about breaking the law (since mistreating animals is against the law anyways) so if we were to close all zoos, who's to say that they wouldn't continue their "service"? These zoos will go on no matter what kind of laws we pass."

We may assume that the owners would continue mistreating animals, but we cannot predict that. If there are laws prohibiting zoos, think how hard it would be for the owners to get animals on a black market. You don't have to break too many laws to mistreat animals, depending on your definition of 'mistreat'. (to treat badly; Abuse http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) I consider stuffing a tiger in a 12 by 12 by 12 box is mistreatment. If zoos were gradually stricken from society, then the rules concerning public display of animals would all but disappear.
"These zoos will go on no matter what kind of laws we pass."
The zoos will not go on if laws are passed banning them. Zoos make money off of visitors. If zoos are illegal, families won't be so inclined to take Tommy and Jane to the zoo. What a way to introduce your children to an unlawful life! With no visitor remuneration, operating debts will soar and close down the business.

I apologize if parts of my argument were not clear. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
"yes, but can you explain to me what you were meaning by this? (I am sorry, I just don't understand how this pertains to zoos. I know you have a reason, I just don't think you made it clear) ;)"
My reason was to enforce the idea that since civilized countries, such as Germany mistreat animals in their zoos, that makes the USA a possible target for such violence coming from inside zoos. If Germany, a country with the same rules for maintaining animal well-being, is slaughtering animals (in one of its largest and most popular zoos!), how vicious can America get?

"This is sad, and not every zoo does this, but isn't this what we do with cattle? Why should exotic animals be treated any differently that cattle?" (exotic: foreign, not native to current location http://www.merriam-webster.com... )

If we are paying good money to import these animals and maintain their health in an environment that must be synthetically altered, we are not likely to kill them. If we kill cattle, it is because people eat meat, and beef is a common staple in an American's diet. Penguin is not. Cows are plentiful, and what's even better, we don't have to worry about shipping them for days across a rough sea, not knowing how many are alive or dead. Even the reproductive system is flawed. Most of the animals you see in zoos do not multiply well in unnatural habitats. Let's take a look at pandas, some of the most commonly sought after animals for zoos.

"6. How many cubs does a female panda have in its lifetime?

Usually five to eight babies in the wild."
Notice in the Wild--natural habitat.

7. What is the maximum number of pandas that a single panda has given birth to in captivity?

The panda that has had the most cubs in captivity was Jing Ji, from the Baoxing region of Sichuan. She gave birth to 14 pandas but sadly, none of her cubs survived."

Hm...14 cubs and the zoo couldn't save one? Perhaps it had something to do with the unnatural habitat.

"Yes, but this happens to pets and cattle as well, so it is not just from zoos."
True, but most zoos are government property (see above). The government should be as flawless as possible. Cattle serve a necessary purpose for humans. Zoos do not. Pets are personal property and should be treated and taken care of as such.

Reproductive systems in the wild are natural; animals follow their own cycles and natural predators keep the population in check while feeding part of another population. Animals are born with different reproductive systems. Some animals are designed to have many babies in one pregnancy, like fish, because there is a small chance of survival. If the animal produces more, the higher the chance is that more will survive. However, when we take these animals out of their natural habitats, we not only mess with their physical/psychological well-being, but also the natural forces that weed out the weak and keep populations in check.

"when you have a pet hamster or guinea pig, are they not held against their wills and held captive? Yes, they are. Have you ever (and I know you have at least once), picked up some random animal on the side of the road, in your backyard, etc, (whether it be a turtle or a frog, etc) put it in a box or jar and kept it? This is just the same thing."
This is not the same thing. I, as a child, did not have a collection of live animals to take care of and watch. I may have picked up a ladybug or two, but I let them go after a short while. I never kept a live animal for very long. Also, those animals which I might find outside are usually not the endangered kinds, the ones which need to be protected. By thrusting myself into the mix, I confuse the normal pattern, and populations start mutating.

As for the nightclub acts, the point is, that animals were being used as entertainment and no good came of it.

True, there will be many job losses. However, that doesn't mean change is a bad thing. We do have other jobs opening up, jobs which can take trained/non-trained people. It may take a while but in the long run, we'll even ourselves out and our unemployment rate will go back down. We do not need to do a clean sweep and eliminate all the zoos in the USA. We need to slowly faze out zoos, offering up jobs to ex-employees, and provide a better lifestyle for all animals.
1) captive breeding is not successful if the animals are a new species to the zoo, or the zoo is having trouble conceiving babies. Also, this may lead to over-population of the wild animals, and less instinctive patterns in the new babies' customs.
2) Can we afford to be testing animals in our zoos? Is it worth it? How detrimental is it to the zoos operating procedure? Animals in the zoo are not the best subjects to be tested upon, especially if they have been bred in captivity.
3) the animals have a safer environment, but it's artificial.
out of characters, sry
thx!
Debate Round No. 2
RacH3ll3

Pro

Thank you.

"I realize that. The fact is, the minimum is what most people feel is the right amount. If you are told to write a research paper, of a minimum of seven pages, are you likely to do 17? No, it's a pain for you to write and a pain for the teacher to grade. Likewise, larger spaces and better accommodations require more money, which is a put-off for many companies, especially smaller ones."

Smaller companies, as they grow, gain money from visitors. They also can get private donations, and loans. (and good example, by the way)
Look at it this way: pounds hold dogs, cats, and other types of animals. These pens are very small. Most of the small town pounds don't get the money they need or do not have volunteers to play with the animals. Their pens do not even mimic their environment. Zoos do mimic the animals' environment.

"If there are laws prohibiting zoos, think how hard it would be for the owners to get animals on a black market."

There are laws prohibiting drugs and murder, but you still find drugs and body parts on the black market.

"With no visitor remuneration, operating debts will soar and close down the business."

But then what will they do with the animals? Kill them? [illegally] sell them? set them free? All three of these seem very horrible to me. {I will talk about why setting them free is horrible whenever I get to my arguments :) thanks}

"My reason was to enforce the idea that since civilized countries, such as Germany mistreat animals in their zoos, that makes the USA a possible target for such violence coming from inside zoos. If Germany, a country with the same rules for maintaining animal well-being, is slaughtering animals (in one of its largest and most popular zoos!), how vicious can America get?"

thank you for clearing this up for me. This is why we need better control over who takes care of the animals. It is very sad that it happens, and many zoos like this are closed down.

"If we are paying good money to import these animals and maintain their health in an environment that must be synthetically altered, we are not likely to kill them. If we kill cattle, it is because people eat meat, and beef is a common staple in an American's diet. Penguin is not. Cows are plentiful, and what's even better, we don't have to worry about shipping them for days across a rough sea, not knowing how many are alive or dead. Even the reproductive system is flawed. Most of the animals you see in zoos do not multiply well in unnatural habitats."

Killing of these animals goes on even in their environment. It is less likely to happen, however, if they are in the zoo.

""6. How many cubs does a female panda have in its lifetime?
Usually five to eight babies in the wild."
Notice in the Wild--natural habitat.
7. What is the maximum number of pandas that a single panda has given birth to in captivity?
The panda that has had the most cubs in captivity was Jing Ji, from the Baoxing region of Sichuan. She gave birth to 14 pandas but sadly, none of her cubs survived."
Hm...14 cubs and the zoo couldn't save one? Perhaps it had something to do with the unnatural habitat."

This is sad, but zoos do not need fourteen cubs in captivity anyways. This would, of course, lead to overpopulation in the zoos.

"True, but most zoos are government property (see above). The government should be as flawless as possible. Cattle serve a necessary purpose for humans. Zoos do not. Pets are personal property and should be treated and taken care of as such"

It's not so much the goverments fault as it is the workers. Like I mentioned before, they do need to be more careful about who they hire, but this is not what we are debating.

"1) captive breeding is not successful if the animals are a new species to the zoo, or the zoo is having trouble conceiving babies. Also, this may lead to over-population of the wild animals, and less instinctive patterns in the new babies' customs"

Captive breeding is actuallly better than getting them from the wild. (animals born in captivity do not know 'how' to live in the wild. Thus, they will not be bothered mentally as much as animals that are from the wild and turned captive.)

"2) Can we afford to be testing animals in our zoos? Is it worth it? How detrimental is it to the zoos operating procedure? Animals in the zoo are not the best subjects to be tested upon, especially if they have been bred in captivity."

Actually, it is a great idea. Researchers get to see up close how animals will act, and this is how we know which animals will or will not make good house pets.

"3) the animals have a safer environment, but it's artificial."

But they don't have to worry about "protecting" thier territory.

----arguments----

1. --Zoo animals are safer and have help that they do not have in the wild. ---
Like I have mentioned before, they are free from natural disasters and predators) Wild animals do not have vets, do they? Zoos, however, do. If a captive animal gets sick, there is always someone there to help it.

2. --If zoos were to be closed, what would we do with the remaining animals?---
I mentioned this before, but I was going to make it an actual argument. So what exactly would we do with them? We couldn't just kill them. We couldn't set them free, either. How come, you ask?
Because for the ones that have been in captivity all of their life, it would be extremely hard, if not impossible for them to survive. They are used to being fed at regular time intervals, and in the wild, it's hunt or be hunted. They would also not know about predators, making them easy prey. Poachers could easily kill them.

cons of being in the wild:
It would be hard to monitor endangered species, meaning that some of our endangered species would die out, resulting in extinction.
Some animals homes are being torn down, because of humans. These animals wouldn't lose their home if they were in zoos. Unless, of course, Zoos got closed down.
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk...
(my above source does show some cons about zoos, so don't mind that part :) thanks)

Thank you this was a fun debate:) hope we can debate again sometime:) you are a good debater.

(Do you want both of us to refrain from voting, or vote but give an RFD?)

and to the voters: please give a RFD. It would be much appreciated. Thank you
bored

Con

Thank you, for the enjoyable debate. You are a good debater too. I shall abstain from voting, if you prefer.

"Look at it this way: pounds hold dogs, cats, and other types of animals. These pens are very small. Most of the small town pounds don't get the money they need or do not have volunteers to play with the animals. Their pens do not even mimic their environment. Zoos do mimic the animals' environment."

1 : to imitate closely : ape
2 : to ridicule by imitation
3 : simulate

http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]

'To mimic' is not a good way for animals to be treated. I shall assume my opponent is referring to the first and third definition, and I hope not to the second, but it is still no comparison to the real thing. Pounds do not even attempt to imitate the animals' natural environments, but they are temporary stops along the way for animals. Animals do not stay in a pound forever. "Pound -A facility established by local ordinance in which stray, abandoned and lost animals are held, or "impounded" for a period of time. The purpose of impoundment is to allow time for owners to claim lost pets or to find new homes for the animals. Animals neither claimed nor adopted at the end of this period are put to death. " http://www.mismr.org...

Animals in zoos are
a) not going to be 'found' by their owners and set free
b) naturally wild and undomesticated (e.g. lions, and tigers, and bears)
c) permanently placed in the zoo

These are some reasons why zoos are not like pounds, but as the debate is not about the effectivity of pounds, I shall continue with my arguments.

"There are laws prohibiting drugs and murder, but you still find drugs and body parts on the black market."
This is true, but how many people do you know who can openly purchase drugs and body parts and wave them at the cops? Not many. They will be sent to jail, or severely fined, or reprimanded in some other way. I did not say that it would be impossible for owners to get animals illegally, just that it would be much harder.
I did not notice a counter argument for my statement that maintaining these animals would be even more difficult because of the lack of everyday income when the zoos close. The owners would not be able to cover the costs produced by housing these animals illegally.

"But then what will they do with the animals? Kill them? [illegally] sell them? set them free? All three of these seem very horrible to me. {I will talk about why setting them free is horrible whenever I get to my arguments :) thanks}"
This may sound horrible, but there are always those who slip through the cracks. The ones who have to give up comfort and perhaps even life for the long term benefit of the rest. If all the zoos were closed down (in North America, to start), and the animal protective services documented all the animals found, their conditions and so forth, we would have fewer problems with illegal marketing. The ones who could not return to the wild, could be held in captivity or a reserve. They do not need to be killed or sold. We can slowly phase out the cycle of trying to domesticate wild animals. Clearly, we cannot monitor the closing of every single zoo and/or animal exhibit. That is what I mean by having to let some slip through the cracks. However, this cannot be helped and will lead to a better future for the animals in the long run.

"This is why we need better control over who takes care of the animals. It is very sad that it happens, and many zoos like this are closed down."

The Berlin Zoo is still open. http://www.planetware.com...
We may pretend to be taking action but we are simply shoving the crimes away so as not to think about them.

"Killing of these animals goes on even in their environment. It is less likely to happen, however, if they are in the zoo."
This is very true. However, you bring up my following argument too: overpopulation.
"This is sad, but zoos do not need fourteen cubs in captivity anyways. This would, of course, lead to overpopulation in the zoos."
In the wild, the populations are naturally kept in check. In the zoo, they are allowed to breed and domesticate infinitely. Death can be a good thing; we can't all live forever. Animals who are struggling to survive in the wild could be taken into a reserve or protected area until they multiply and then put back into the wild, but not fenced into zoos for life and taken away from their natural habitats.
"It's not so much the goverments fault as it is the workers. Like I mentioned before, they do need to be more careful about who they hire, but this is not what we are debating."
The workers are only liable to a certain point. It is part of the employer's job to oversee the total aspects of the work. The workers are there to produce the result, the employer's are there to see it done in a stable manner.

"Captive breeding is actually better than getting them from the wild. (animals born in captivity do not know 'how' to live in the wild. Thus, they will not be bothered mentally as much as animals that are from the wild and turned captive.)"

However, this means we are slowly taking the animal and mutating it into a domesticated species, unlike its wild cousins. We are not simply erasing the 'bothered mentality' but all connotations to the real world. In some ways, it is like a lobotomy, without the physical tools. "Some of his patients became calmer, some did not. Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. "
http://webspace.ship.edu...
Not very popular. Perhaps the animals bred in captivity will be docile. Perhaps not. Remember the chimpanzee, Travis, in Connecticut? He ate like a human, lived like a human and behaved like a human. However, one day, his geniality snapped and he attacked, brutally mauling a woman.
"The thing about chimpanzees is, we sort of look at them through our rose-colored cultural glasses of the cute little chimp in the 'Tarzan' movie. Those are very young chimps. Chimps grow up, they become very powerful. They are very complex in their behavior. They have a whole range of emotions, including violence and anger."
http://www.cnn.com...

The point is, that even away from their natural domain, animals still retain enough instinct to be dangerous, but not enough habits to be useful for experiments and research.

"Actually, it is a great idea. Researchers get to see up close how animals will act, and this is how we know which animals will or will not make good house pets."
I would hope that no animal in a zoo will be made a house pet.
"But they don't have to worry about "protecting" thier territory."
Again, we have the problems of overpopulation, decreased instinct, and fewer habits of a wild animal.

"1. --Zoo animals are safer and have help that they do not have in the wild."
The point is, they either survive on their own or die. It keeps the population in check. Unlike humans, who are multiplying rapidly and we have no where to put all of us. If an animal is in such dire straits that it needs open heart surgery to survive, why should it struggle to stay alive when there are more than enough just waiting to take its place? That sounds harsh, but it's the natural order of life. Survival of the fittest.

"If zoos were to be closed, what would we do with the remaining animals?"
We would watch/take care of them until they die, with no more coming in.
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk... please, read it for yourself. There are two cons to leaving animals in the wild and five pros. the numbers speak for themselves. In fact, the article is well written, but not favoring zoos.
Thank you =)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bored 8 years ago
bored
Duly noted:)
Thank you Lexicaholic for pointing that out. You are correct, imbue would be a much more appropriate word.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
I assumed that the purpose of the debate was merely to argue the pro and con points of having legally operating zoos, as that was where the Pro side of the debate took the argument. While I do think Con needs to look up the definitions of some of the words she used (imbibe should have been imbue for example) I think that the logic she used in reaching her point was stronger and less prone to open-ended argumentation. Compare the argument that zoos being illegal could continue to stay open versus the the Con argument that they likely would not. The Con argument uses illegality as a disincentive, where as the Pro argument uses it as a preventative. Short of chaining people to the ground, no one can prevent anyone from taking any actions. The best one can do is try and dissuade people from operating a certain way. Con argues for such dissuasion and Pro attacks it by positing that it could not accomplish an impossibility: prevention. Therefore, I gave this debate to Con.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
A good debate by both sides. Both had well-structured arguments and made good use of references. Nicely done.

The problem with the debate is the lack of a resolution. The resolution might be: "The concept of zoos is a good one." or maybe "Zoos do more good than harm." or "There are more good zoos than bad zoos." Neither side clarified what they thought the resolution was. I guessed that the resolution was one of the first two, and gave the nod to Pro on that basis.
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
I am also wanting to debate this in the "con" position if anybody is up for it :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Smil3_4Fun 8 years ago
Smil3_4Fun
RacH3ll3boredTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
RacH3ll3boredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
RacH3ll3boredTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
RacH3ll3boredTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
RacH3ll3boredTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40